The New York Times opinion piece by Aaron David Miller and Steven Simon on April 14, “The U.S. must now reckon with a hegemon in the Mideast: Israel,” is not only inaccurate but recklessly incites more intense antisemitism.
“Hegemon” is defined as a leader, country or group that is powerful and therefore able to control others. Using it in this context, the authors—two former U.S. State Department and National Security Council officials—show they have no concept of history or a higher moral foundation of Judaism versus Islam.
Commenting on Israel’s response to the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, the authors say it is has “fundamentally altered the Middle East balance of power in a way not seen since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war,” and “Enabled by the United States, its Arab treaty partners and key Gulf States, the Israelis have broken the Hamas-Hezbollah ring of opposition … .”
Then, the authors call Israel the region’s “hegemon” and mean it in a very negative light.
Two important points come to mind. The first is how else should a sovereign country have responded to the barbaric attack on their innocent civilians, with hostages being held to this day? All of Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7, which they joyously filmed and posted online, blatantly violate international laws, the Geneva Conventions and human decency. And the second is that Israel was not consistently “enabled” by the previous U.S. administration; rather, it was often deliberately hampered from effectively and efficiently dealing with these inhumane terrorists.
Miller and Smith continue, “Israel has benefited from the weakness of surrounding states, much as Iran did while it was, until very recently, vying to be the top dog.” Incredulously, they also claim that it is Israel’s fault that “Lebanese leaders remain preoccupied by internal rivalries while Syria’s new government faces enormous economic, political and security challenges. Despite its oil, Iraq can’t meet the needs of a large population.” Talk about unfounded conspiracy theories to undermine the sovereignty of the only democracy in the area.
Furthermore, to falsely imply that Israel is gloating at the pain of others is to ignore history and the fundamentals of the Jewish religion.
Israel only wants—and has always wanted—safe, defensible borders and to be left alone. Unfortunately, one cannot make peace with enemies who don’t want peace. Islamic jihadists will never make peace with anyone. Political and religious dominance is their stated goal, in their own words in their founding and guiding charters; the Hamas covenant of 1988 and Palestinian National Charter of 1968, to name just two.
This goal of political and religious dominance has been evident in the many repeated statements by Arab and Palestinian leadership. One example of such sentiment and rhetoric repeated to this day is a February 1948 memorandum issued by the United Nations, in which Azzam Pasha, the secretary-general of the Arab League, referring to the upcoming May 1948 war in which five Arab nations attacked the newly formed modern Jewish State of Israel, said: “This war will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.”
This goal is even repeatedly mentioned in the Quran. Here are just two examples, in 9:33, referencing Allah appointing Mohammed over others, saying: “He is the one who has sent his messenger with true guidance and the religion of truth, making it prevail over all others, even to the dismay of the polytheists.” And in 9:123 of the Quran it says, “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.”
Within Judaism, there is no call for non-Jews to convert and no commandments to conquer land outside the Promised Land of Israel, a small sliver of land along the Mediterranean coast. This claim is proven in biblical texts, archaeological finds and ancient historians, all thousands of years before the existence of Islam and hundreds of years before the creation of Arab “Palestinians.”
Miller and Simon incorrectly state that “Israel’s form of hegemony has engendered a temporary stability.” As attacks from Hamas, the Houthis and other terrorists continue to this day and given that all the hostages have not yet been returned, there is no stability.
The authors go on to claim with ignorance: “But it won’t last without converting Israel’s military dominance into arrangements, and agreements with its Palestinian and Arab neighbors that reflect a balance of interest rather than the current asymmetry of power, which sooner or later will lead to more confrontation, violence and terror.” These former U.S. government officials ignore the many times that peace and territory has been offered to, and, turned down by Israel’s Palestinian and Arab neighbors.
As always, the answer to peace in the Middle East seems to be forcing and putting pressure on Israel to concede, step back, give up and compromise to Arab demands, and then encouraging Israel not to respond too harshly to the ensuing Arab violence that inevitably accompanies Israel’s “good faith acts.” This has historically been proven to be a failure. In the hundred years of this conflict, there has never been any voice forcing Muslims to compromise. Muslims consistently state their absolute intention to commit genocide by destroying Israel and killing all the Jews. Israel, however, is always being encouraged to compromise with these Muslim neighbors.
As has been demonstrated over and over again, they are not “neighbors” in the good sense. They are destroyers, and following any of the misguided advice offered by Miller and Simon would aid in Israel’s destruction. Such opinions need to be understood in that they are voices designed to aid Muslims in their mission to destroy Israel. After that, their Islamist target is Western civilization.